After a landmark decision that advanced the Line 5 tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac, a state board is assessing next steps for the project.
In its recent permitting decision, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) concluded that Enbridge can proceed with its project, so long as it receives a remaining federal permit and approval from the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (MSCA).
During its Dec. 7 meeting, the MSCA discussed the decision and how the Authority will meet the permit's provisions.
Authority chairman, Paul Novak, said Enbridge is required to submit a risk management plan to the MSCA, but some details still need to be worked out.
"The point about the risk management plan, requiring not only that it be submitted, but that it be approved — that is something for which clarification from the PSC could be sought, if we don't think it is sufficiently clear," Novak said.
According to the MPSC, the risk management plan needs to include: "geotechnical test bore sitings with related data and real-time reporting; concrete cast section inspections; a placement plan of gaskets; analyses of bentonite mix, and any changes in slurry pressure."
The new permit also stipulated that third-party utilities will need to go through the MPSC for approval, which were designated as an area of the MSCA's oversight in the initial tunnel agreement.
"There was testimony by various experts indicating that they had some concerns not knowing what effect, if any, that co-locating third-party utilities might have on the safety of the tunnel," MSCA attorney, Ray Howd said. "And therefore... then Enbridge would be required to petition the PSC."
During public comment, several attendees warned that going forward with the tunnel will have dangerous consequences for the Great Lakes.
Christy McGillivray, a director with the Michigan Sierra Club, said the state is "saddling the people of Michigan with liability."
"The fact that the proposed MOUs (memorandums of understanding) are not immediately available to the public is a serious problem," McGillivray said. "Transparency is the real issue here. Without transparency, there can't be any accountability."
In its permitting decision, the MPSC chairperson Dan Scripps said approving to place a new, 4-mile section of Line 5 into the tunnel adds an "additional layer of resilience for how we meet our energy needs in Michigan."
He acknowledged that an "active energy transition is taking place [in the state], including the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy resources," but said this transition "won't happen overnight."
"In the meantime, we have a responsibility to approve the infrastructure needed to meet our energy needs and take steps necessary to get the current pipelines off the bottom of the Straits," Scripps said.
At the MSCA meeting, McGillivray, along with others, raised the issue that climate change has not been accounted for by the state as a serious risk with the tunnel project.
"The science is unequivocal: we have to stop burning fossil fuels," McGillivray said. "The fact that a conversation about risk — is not centering on the risk posed by climate change points to the woeful inadequacy of the model that you're using to evaluate risk."
Andrea Pierce, who also spoke during the MPSC's Dec. 1 meeting, said she doesn't understand why the state is negotiating with a company that is "operating illegally."
"We should not be consulting with people that are risking our water..." said Pierce, a member of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. "The Michigan constitution says must protect the Great Lakes — this is not protecting the Great Lakes."
Other business
MSCA members gave an update on their search for an independent quality contractor — a third-party consultant that is meant to monitor tunnel construction. Requests for proposals were due Dec. 11, and the MSCA plans to publicly approve a contractor in February.
Ryan Mitchell, with the Michigan Department of Transportation, reported that the timeline of an environmental review conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers remains unchanged. This announcement follows a discussion from the MSCA's previous meeting, where Authority members considered their options in advancing the review.
The risk analysis conducted by the MSCA, which was expected to be released in its entirety at the Dec. 7 meeting, was deferred to the next meeting in February.
